[Bill Ferny]

Once again Daughter hits the nail on the head! Once again, hats off to an excellent and provocative post. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] It's all in the definition! Like on many other threads, what seems to be the object of the intellectual struggle is finding a definition of “good”.

Good is the same thing as being or existence, but approached from the perspective of desire and will. We humans desire stuff. Why? Because we naturally desire to become more; we will our own perfection. Good behavior, then, is what helps us to achieve our perfection. Bad behavior, on the other hand, is what stops us from achieving our perfection.

Sounds simple, ey? Well, we aren’t that lucky. First of all, what is human perfection? Secondly, the fact that makes ethics such a difficult subject, is that all people act according to a perceived good. Even sadists and hedonists and satanists are acting to achieve what they perceive as good. What sets ethical behavior apart from unethical behavior hinges on what we conclude is our perfection, or final cause. If human beings are simply animals seeking physical pleasure, then the hedonists are the people acting ethically. If human perfection resides in the survival of the fittest and the domination of the strongest, then the sadists are the ones acting ethically. If human perfection is an eternity of pain and suffering, then the satanists are the ones acting ethically.

Fortunately, human beings are none of these. We are rational animals. Reason, the ability to know and will that which is a priori and a posteriori to the self (transcendence of the human intellect) indicates that our perfection is to know and will not just our own perfection, but to know and will the highest of all perfections beyond ourselves, being qua being, that whose existence is its essence. There are greater and lesser goods, and the highest good (being qua being). If lesser goods (such as physical pleasure, survival or dominance) leads to greater goods, and these greater goods in turn lead to the highest good (being qua being), then one is acting ethically. Those who mistake lesser or greater goods for the highest good (being qua being) are acting unethically. In fact, they are corrupting these very goods that exist for no other purpose than to lead the human person to the highest good (being qua being).

While this may sound religious in tone, remember it was the pagan Greeks who first conceived this philosophical anthropology, not Christians or Muslims. Thus, it is possible for all people, no matter their religion or lack thereof, to strive for the highest good (being qua being). Those of us who are religious are just the lucky ones who have been given the answers to the test (like, being qua being = The One True God). While the pursuit of the good is not something belonging solely to those of a religious bent, the vast majority of those who have no religion make the mistake of ending their pursuit of good with greater goods. Achieving greater goods, like peace, love of neighbor or a life of virtue, no matter how lofty or noble they may be, are really pointless in and of themselves. Their very existence is dependent on that which they indicate, that which gives them meaning and significance, the only thing that can satisfy the human need to know and will: being qua being. For human beings to achieve anything less leads only to dissatisfaction and never quenchable thirst.

How can Frodo, and anyone else in Middle Earth, act ethically? First of all, Tolkien wrote it that way. However, at the root of his assumed anthropology of hobbits, men and elves, Tolkien accepts unconsciously this definition of good and all that it entails.